UCC believe it or not

[Lawdog]

Poor palani...he confuses a contract, which can be and usually is between two private parties, and a public document, like a court order, birth certificate, etc.

Those public documents are not contracts.

Court orders are not contracts...that was the part I left out of my earlier answer. I wanted to see if someone would draw the wrong conclusion, and palani did!

The reason I can't produce a sealed contract "from" a court.

Because contracts don't have to be sealed with wax or a gold sticker to be enforceable, and so they almost never are.

And because court orders, rulings, and the like are not contracts.

Getting it yet?

[palani]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Poor palani...he confuses a contract, which can be and usually is between two private parties, and a public document, like a court order, birth certificate, etc.

Those public documents are not contracts.

Court orders are not contracts...that was the part I left out of my earlier answer. I wanted to see if someone would draw the wrong conclusion, and palani did!

The reason I can't produce a sealed contract "from" a court.

Because contracts don't have to be sealed with wax or a gold sticker to be enforceable, and so they almost never are.

And because court orders, rulings, and the like are not contracts.

Getting it yet?

Rule 5.902 says nothing about contract. Rule 5.902 discusses public documents which are self-authenticating. A court order is 'presumed' to be a public document.

Without the presence of a seal the court should invalidate (dishonor) its' own documents.

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Of course not. There are many ways other than court to settle a dispute.

Flip a coin.

Fistfight.

Pick a card.

Dueling pistols at dawn.

Some methods are smarter and safer than others, though.

Ok, so you wanna be a ****head? I asked you nicely and you knew what I meant.
Go **** yourself.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

These two arguments have been raised in court, so, yes, let's see if a court had ever found them valid.

Ok, I said no court had ever upheld either the argument about names in all-caps or the fringe on the flag. Certainly I had found dozens of court decisions that rejected either of these arguments, but never found (even with Lexis and WestLaw) a single case uphodling either of them,.

Prove me wrong. Someone come up with the citation to even ONE reported decision for each!! Or else, shut up.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Ok, I said no court had ever upheld either the argument about names in all-caps or the fringe on the flag. Certainly I had found dozens of court decisions that rejected either of these arguments, but never found (even with Lexis and WestLaw) a single case uphodling either of them,.

Prove me wrong. Someone come up with the citation to even ONE reported decision for each!! Or else, shut up.

Shut up????? Your false order is emphatically declined and renounced as BS.

You know as well as I and most everyone else on this forum, that there are thousands upon thousands of cases that have been decided, which were restricted by the courts to be NOT MADE PUBLIC with the command, DO NOT PUBLISH. Why would they make such commands to various cases? Simple.... To HIDE the TRUTH from the people.

Jerry Carlos

[ezrhythm]

HAHAHA! Any successful use of those subjects will get a dismissal with NO CASE CITATION!

Dontcha know any better?

Try referring to "psholtz" court testimony again.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Shut up????? Your false order is emphatically declined and renounced as BS.

You know as well as I and most everyone else on this forum, that there are thousands upon thousands of cases that have been decided, which were restricted by the courts to be NOT MADE PUBLIC with the command, DO NOT PUBLISH. Why would they make such commands to various cases? Simple.... To HIDE the TRUTH from the people.

Jerry Carlos

If the courts are as corrupt as you wingnuts claim, there's no reason to use "do not publish" orders to "hide the truth" from the people.

If judges do as they please and make up the law as they go along, as you claim, wouldn't it be simpler to just rule AGAINST the wingnut, regardless of the facts and the law, and let it be published?

You know, like all the other published decisions that reject wingnut claims?

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

If the courts are as corrupt as you wingnuts claim, there's no reason to use "do not publish" orders to "hide the truth" from the people.

If judges do as they please and make up the law as they go along, as you claim, wouldn't it be simpler to just rule AGAINST the wingnut, regardless of the facts and the law, and let it be published?

You know, like all the other published decisions that reject wingnut claims?

Throwing in a blanket title such as 'wingnut' on cases is really nothing more than another distraction. Admittedly, there are some 'wingnut' cases out there; as an example, some prisoner filing a suit because another prisoner got more toast on his breakfast tray than he did; that would be a real 'wingnut' case.

On the otherhand, When a (as you call it) "wingnut" case is won, the judges surely don't want the public to know about it, so they command that it not be published. Sometimes, they even go so far as to place the victor under a gag order. I concur, that 'wingnut' cases that are lost are normally published so as to make a point. But there are those (maybe rare) that actually win and are barred from being published. Of course, I would never expect you to admit to such a thing, as that would place your support of the and alleged membership in the brotherhood in jeopardy.

As mentioned above, gag orders are not an un-common thing when a 'wingnut' case goes into mediation.

Jerry Carlos

[Steel]

There seem to be some nay sayers here,
I posted a Memorandum (small pic below and 2.5mb pdf in my forum http://www.ridewithit.com/)
for whomever believes they can once and for all crush UCC doctrine
this is an something I did physically hang in a Courthouse on a public board in the main corridor,
It hung for 3 days.

Prove it wrong and I will never post in this UCC thread again.




note Sui Juris in lower right corner

[Lawdog]

Whoosh!!!!

My point goes sailing right over Jerry Carlos' head.

Read VERY carefully this time: There's no need for a court to issue a gag order to hide the truth when a "sovrun citizun" wins a case.

The courts are all corrupt, according to you guys. A corrupt judge is going to rule any way he wants to, damn the facts and the law.

So, instead of ruling in favor of the "sovrun citizun" and order it sealed, rule AGAINST the "sovrun citizun" and order it published.

Looks much less suspicious than ordering a case to be sealed and the parties subject to a gag order.

Think, man, think! Exercise your brain!